issue_comments
18 rows where "created_at" is on date 2019-05-23 sorted by created_at
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: issue_url
id | html_url | issue_url | node_id | user | created_at ▼ | updated_at | author_association | body | reactions | issue | performed_via_github_app |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
495032818 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/483#issuecomment-495032818 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/483 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ5NTAzMjgxOA== | simonw 9599 | 2019-05-23T01:28:06Z | 2019-05-23T01:28:06Z | OWNER | Here's a UI concept: |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Option to facet by date using month or year 447408527 | |
495032933 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/483#issuecomment-495032933 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/483 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ5NTAzMjkzMw== | simonw 9599 | 2019-05-23T01:28:45Z | 2019-05-23T01:28:45Z | OWNER | Would this be useful for other facets? How many facet types are likely to have a small number of options that could be linked to in this way? |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Option to facet by date using month or year 447408527 | |
495034774 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/483#issuecomment-495034774 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/483 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ5NTAzNDc3NA== | jcmkk3 45919695 | 2019-05-23T01:38:32Z | 2019-05-23T01:43:04Z | NONE | I think that location information is one of the other common pieces of hierarchical data. At least one that is general enough that extra dimensions could be auto-generated. Also, I think this is an awesome project. Thank you for creating this. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Option to facet by date using month or year 447408527 | |
495058104 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/259#issuecomment-495058104 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/259 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ5NTA1ODEwNA== | simonw 9599 | 2019-05-23T03:55:37Z | 2019-05-23T03:55:37Z | OWNER | I got rid of inspect in #462 - I will still be doing many-to-many detection (initially as part of #356) but it doesn't need a separate ticket. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
inspect() should detect many-to-many relationships 322787470 | |
495058622 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/355#issuecomment-495058622 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/355 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ5NTA1ODYyMg== | simonw 9599 | 2019-05-23T03:58:58Z | 2019-05-23T03:58:58Z | OWNER | So the design I have so far is:
I'm concerned that this doesn't take tables or columns with |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Table view should support filtering via many-to-many relationships 346027040 | |
495058828 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/355#issuecomment-495058828 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/355 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ5NTA1ODgyOA== | simonw 9599 | 2019-05-23T04:00:27Z | 2019-05-23T04:00:27Z | OWNER | The alternative would be to use JSON:
|
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Table view should support filtering via many-to-many relationships 346027040 | |
495058964 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/355#issuecomment-495058964 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/355 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ5NTA1ODk2NA== | simonw 9599 | 2019-05-23T04:01:17Z | 2019-05-23T04:01:17Z | OWNER | I think I like this better. I don't think
|
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Table view should support filtering via many-to-many relationships 346027040 | |
495059236 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/355#issuecomment-495059236 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/355 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ5NTA1OTIzNg== | simonw 9599 | 2019-05-23T04:03:04Z | 2019-05-23T04:03:04Z | OWNER | This assumes that our current table has a single, unambiguous foreign key relationship with the table indicated by the I think that's reasonable. The JSON format could be extended to allow that side of the relationship to optionally be defined there (if the foreign key relationship is missing). |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Table view should support filtering via many-to-many relationships 346027040 | |
495061686 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/355#issuecomment-495061686 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/355 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ5NTA2MTY4Ng== | simonw 9599 | 2019-05-23T04:21:00Z | 2019-05-23T04:21:00Z | OWNER | Filtering through one table already works - you need to know that table's primary key, then you do Filtering through a m2m table will be handled by the new I'm going to leave out filtering through a second levels of joins for the moment. Potentially that could be added later as some extra complicated JSON. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Table view should support filtering via many-to-many relationships 346027040 | |
495068273 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/484#issuecomment-495068273 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/484 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ5NTA2ODI3Mw== | simonw 9599 | 2019-05-23T05:03:48Z | 2019-05-23T05:04:35Z | OWNER | Ideally we would display a limited number of m2m related records with a "..." if there are more than our limit. I could also show a count of the total number of records, but this would have to be agressively time-limited or it could cause extremely poor performance. This could be implemented as a SQL query for every displayed row, taking advantage of Many Small Queries Are Efficient In SQLite. Provided that SQL runs against an index this should be fast to display even on a table with hundreds of rows. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Mechanism for displaying summary of m2m relationships in rows on table view 447451492 | |
495077443 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/355#issuecomment-495077443 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/355 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ5NTA3NzQ0Mw== | simonw 9599 | 2019-05-23T05:52:52Z | 2019-05-23T05:52:52Z | OWNER | Documentation here: https://datasette.readthedocs.io/en/latest/json_api.html#special-table-arguments |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Table view should support filtering via many-to-many relationships 346027040 | |
495077528 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/355#issuecomment-495077528 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/355 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ5NTA3NzUyOA== | simonw 9599 | 2019-05-23T05:53:20Z | 2019-05-23T05:53:20Z | OWNER | Demo: https://latest.datasette.io/fixtures/roadside_attractions?_through={%22table%22:%22roadside_attraction_characteristics%22,%22column%22:%22characteristic_id%22,%22value%22:%221%22} |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Table view should support filtering via many-to-many relationships 346027040 | |
495079393 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/355#issuecomment-495079393 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/355 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ5NTA3OTM5Mw== | simonw 9599 | 2019-05-23T06:02:11Z | 2019-05-23T06:02:11Z | OWNER | I'm re-opening because we need a UI mechanism for deselecting this: |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Table view should support filtering via many-to-many relationships 346027040 | |
495079705 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/355#issuecomment-495079705 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/355 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ5NTA3OTcwNQ== | simonw 9599 | 2019-05-23T06:03:40Z | 2019-05-23T06:04:03Z | OWNER | I think an approach similar to how Can address this feedback from @psychemedia while I'm at it: https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/429#issuecomment-483202658 |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Table view should support filtering via many-to-many relationships 346027040 | |
495080390 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/483#issuecomment-495080390 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/483 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ5NTA4MDM5MA== | simonw 9599 | 2019-05-23T06:06:53Z | 2019-05-23T06:06:53Z | OWNER | Yes there's definitely something exciting to be done with location facets. The easiest one would be a radius-distance-from-a-point facet (5km, 10km etc). A more sophisticated thing might be possible on top of GeoJSON and SpatiaLite - that's probably something I would put in a plugin rather than shipping in Datasette itself. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Option to facet by date using month or year 447408527 | |
495080591 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/483#issuecomment-495080591 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/483 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ5NTA4MDU5MQ== | simonw 9599 | 2019-05-23T06:07:53Z | 2019-05-23T06:09:05Z | OWNER | As far as URL design goes... I'm going to stick with
Where interval can be day (the default), month or year. And maybe week? Not sure about that. Still not sure what/if I should do about exposing these options in the UI. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Option to facet by date using month or year 447408527 | |
495083670 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/485#issuecomment-495083670 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/485 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ5NTA4MzY3MA== | simonw 9599 | 2019-05-23T06:21:52Z | 2019-05-23T06:22:36Z | OWNER | If a table has more than two columns we could do a betterl job at guessing the label column. A few potential tricks:
|
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Improvements to table label detection 447469253 | |
495085021 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/485#issuecomment-495085021 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/485 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ5NTA4NTAyMQ== | simonw 9599 | 2019-05-23T06:27:57Z | 2019-05-26T23:15:51Z | OWNER | I could attempt to calculate the statistics needed for this in a time limited SQL query something like this one: https://latest.datasette.io/fixtures?sql=select+%27name%27+as+column%2C+count+%28distinct+name%29+as+count_distinct%2C+avg%28length%28name%29%29+as+avg_length+from+roadside_attractions%0D%0A++union%0D%0Aselect+%27address%27+as+column%2C+count%28distinct+address%29+as+count_distinct%2C+avg%28length%28address%29%29+as+avg_length+from+roadside_attractions
|
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Improvements to table label detection 447469253 |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE [issue_comments] ( [html_url] TEXT, [issue_url] TEXT, [id] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, [node_id] TEXT, [user] INTEGER REFERENCES [users]([id]), [created_at] TEXT, [updated_at] TEXT, [author_association] TEXT, [body] TEXT, [reactions] TEXT, [issue] INTEGER REFERENCES [issues]([id]) , [performed_via_github_app] TEXT); CREATE INDEX [idx_issue_comments_issue] ON [issue_comments] ([issue]); CREATE INDEX [idx_issue_comments_user] ON [issue_comments] ([user]);
issue 5